Comments on stated troblems with previous proposal (man_made=kiln)

Yes, both the feature page and its preceding proposal clearly define that it may be used on areas. --Fkv (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Does not provide information related to social issues such as workers

It seems this proposal tries to deeply detail the workers' situation. Perhaps this could become a separate proposal. --Jgpacker (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It could become a separate proposal, but it does not belong in a geographical information system anyway. OSM is not an encyclopedia, and this kind of data is too short-lived to be maintainable. Workers are hired and fired every day. --Fkv (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A brick kiln can already be mapped with the existing schema

I believe a brick kiln can already by mapped combining the tags man_made=kiln and material=brick.
The key material=* is a de-facto key that describes the main material that makes up the feature.
See building:material=* for a list of values.
--Jgpacker (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree; not only is this redundant, but it's too specific; there are other types of kilns, for tiles, pots, etc. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Or even better, as man_made=works (man_made=kiln really should not be a separate man_made tag) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Two words

Outside the valid remarks above, in general we use a separator in multiple words value like "man_made=brick_kiln" and not "man_made=brickkiln". My 2 cents. --Pieren (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

redefining material tag

In adddition to concerns above - material tag is already defined to mean "Describes the main material of a physical feature". There is no good reason to redefine it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)